Human Rights

The institution of marriage in most countries around the world refers, by default, to marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage equality – the right of two persons to marry regardless of gender and sex, often equated with “same sex marriage” – is onlyfully legalised in 26 countries to date. In many countries, the idea of changing the laws to allow for marriage equality can be a contentious and often partisan issue. Marriage equality is inseparable from the rights of LGBTQ+ populations, therefore a largely classified as a liberal cause invoking debates on religious freedom as well as civil rights. Two countries so far, Ireland and Australia, have referred the matter directly to their citizens through a popular vote; that is, a vote which was extended to each country’s entire voting population. Ireland’s 2015 Referendum and Australia’s 2017 Postal Vote both returned majority “yes” votes, resulting in the passing of legislature that allows any two people to marry regardless of gender. Yet together, Ireland and Australia have set a dangerous precedent where a majority population was given the right to decide on equal access to human rights for an underprivileged group.

Despite being a near-universal practice, marriage is not a universal institution. Each country has its own definition of what constitutes a valid marriage under the law, canonised through laws, acts, even constitutions. Commonly, because dominant historical and cultural narratives see marriage as being between a man and a woman, it is accepted as implicit that this is also the legal definition. A country wishing to extend the right to marry to their LGBTQ+ population will often have to go through a process of legitimising it through amending existing legal texts. This is regardless of whether or not those texts explicitly forbade same-sex marriage in the first place. In countries such as the US, the sovereignty of governing bodies allowed them to determine the institution of marriage without involving the population – the Supreme Court exercised this to outlaw bans on same-sex marriage in a ruling in 2015, allowing for marriage equality to exist in all states of the US. Ireland and Australia exercised direct democracy instead.

Pre-polling in bothIreland andAustralia had already indicated that the majority of those countries were overwhelmingly in favour of marriage equality. Yet the issue was forced into a popular vote in Ireland as a matter of judicial legality. Ireland has an extensive Irish-English constitution. Marriage is defined underArticle 41, which was interpreted to implicitly restrict that marriage be between a man and a woman. That is, the Constitution never explicitly forbade same-sex marriage, but did not endorse it either. In order to insert the proposed34th Amendment to the Irish Constitution which would definitively allow for marriage to be contracted “by two persons without distinction as to their sex”, there was a process stipulated by theIrish Constitution. After a bill which proposes to amend the Constitution passes parliament, it is mandatory to then seek the approval of the majority of all Irish electors (those eligible to vote in general elections) in a Constitutional Referendum. Hence overall, since the power to grant marriage equality in Ireland lay in the Irish Constitution, and a Constitutional Referendum is a necessary step in installing a Constitutional Amendment, a popular vote in Ireland was necessary. TheIrish Referendum, held on the 22nd of May 2015, had a turnout of 60.5% and returned results of 62% yes and 38% no. Following its passing, the government legalised marriage equality on the16th of November that year.

The Australian popular vote often claimed the Irish vote as precedent, but there is in fact a key distinction: there was no legal necessity for a vote in Australia. Unlike Ireland, theAustralian Constitution only mentions marriage where it decrees that marriage and divorce came under the legislative power of the Australian Parliament. The Australian parliament holds discretionary powers on all matters relating to the institution of marriage in Australia, and they chose to define and parameterise marriage under theMarriage Act of 1961. The government is not obligated to seek approval directly from the people when changing Acts. Yet Australia opted for a vote because of a promise made by the Australian Liberal Party in the election of 2016 that they would refer the question of marriage equality directly to the voters (in Australia, the Liberal party is conservative and the Labor Party is liberal, though both are more centrist and less polarised than the conservative-liberal divide in the US). Hence despite having the power to circumvent this divisive popular vote, the Australian parliament essentially arbitrarily decided to conduct a survey on an issue entirely within their power of legislation, based on upholding an election-time promise.

The word “survey” is the correct one to use as a second key distinction should be made between the Australian and Irish votes: the Irish Referendum was binding, the Australian postal vote was not. TheIrish Constitution states that the results of a Constitutional Referendum must be honoured. The Irish President is still required to sign the bill into law as a formality, but since the Irish public voted yes to changing the Constitution, the parliament had no power to overturn the result. However, since the Australian parliament’s legislative powers cover marriage, they could have either refused to pass the bill, or passed it anyway even if the postal vote had resulted in a “no” vote. Indeed, multiple members of parliamentdeclined to vote in accordance with the results returned by their electorate, and a small numberabstained from voting rather than vote with their electorate. If politicians who opposed marriage equality had simply outnumbered those who were for it, the conscience vote for the eventual bill could have sunk marriage equality regardless of the voting result.

The right to marriage and family is Article 16 on the UN’sUniversal Declaration of Human Rights. It specifies that “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family”. (NB: while the singular form “a man and a woman” would decree that marriage be between men and women only, the plural form of “men and women” remains open to be two men, or two women, etc). It further stipulates that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. That is, governments ought to consider that discrimination in the institution of marriage based on gender is not simply a question of politics or civil liberties, but free and equal access to human rights. No other human right is, by default, curtailed by the gender of those under its protection. There is no reason, despite historical conventions, that marriage should be.

Hence Australia’s postal vote foregrounds a question which is understandable, or at least explainable in the case of Ireland – the question of why a government is allowing an entire country to vote on whether or not a historically underprivileged group can exercise their full and equal human rights. It is a dangerous precedent, especially considering that a former administration of Australian parliament had been responsible for prohibiting marriage equality in the first place. TheMarriage Legislation Amendment Bill in 2004 was the first to explicitly define marriage in Australia as the “union of a man and a woman”, and was passed by policy makers alone without a popular vote. Clearly, there was precedent for parliament to alter the institution of marriage in Australia. In polling its citizens, the government asked citizens to grant a minority group rights that politicians alone had taken away. It was the government which denied its citizens access to a human right, and yet they put the responsibility on the country as a whole to restore it.

In a way, the affirmative outcome of both countries’ postal votes is ominous; this is an issue which extends beyond marriage equality or the LGBTQ+ population. It is a question of the role of government in upholding universal human rights. Underprivileged populations have a long history of appealing to the government for their rights. For example, the19th Amendment of the US Constitution handed down by the Supreme Court mandated that states not withhold voting rights based on gender, giving (initially only white) women the vote. Australia and Ireland, intentionally or not, have set a precedent in the opposite direction. Ruling bodies now have a clear and positive precede for devolving the question of human rights to a majority population. They can now cite Ireland and Australia as examples where the will of the people was respected with the ostensible faith that history moves in the right direction. This can now be applied to many partisan political issues of the day which have an underlying foundation in human rights issues: treatment of refugees and undocumented immigrants can be linked to Article 15, the right to a nationality. Freedom of speech and buzzwords such as “politically correct” is relatable to Article 19, the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Debate on abortions and contraception tie back to Article 3, the right to life, liberty, and security of person or Article 6, the right to recognition as a person under the law.

Now the issue is not only in the intangible, hypothetical future – through putting the question of marriage equality to a vote involving not just politicians but each individual in the country, the pressure to pass or deny also falls to each individual in the country. A key and immediate issue presents itself: marginalised groups, instead of lobbying politicians who have civil and legal obligations to them as constituents, are now forced to appeal for their equal rights from every single voter. These are voters who have no constraints on how they treat political and civil issues apart from their personal beliefs. The onus now falls on individuals to prove their worthiness to equal treatment under the law. Where human rights are concerned, equal treatment should be something that is protected by governing powers and not begged for from the sum of individual opinion.

Overall, Ireland and Australia have set a positive precedent, but a dangerous one nonetheless. All citizens of Ireland and Australia now have the right to freely marry, yet this right had to be earned by convincing the majority of a voting population that a marginalised group was worthy of equal treatment. This precedent should be approached with great caution. The victories of Brexit in the UK and President Trump in the US were outcomes which shocked the world – in a world of ever increasing political partisanship, voting is increasingly turbulent and the lines between conservative and liberal are growing wider. It is a dangerous precedent to leave to sheer numbers the human rights of minorities.

The Dangerous Precedent of Marriage Equality Voting in Australia and Ireland was last modified: April 27th, 2018 by Xinong Wang

With its sleek high-rises and spotless, chewing gum-free streets, Singapore is the crown jewel of Asian development. Somehow, an island lacking in natural resources has dominated the world rankings for education, GDP per capita, and internet speed. It’s a Cinderella story of globalization and development. While Singaporean citizens see the rise of this wealthy metropolis as a point of national pride, the lesser acknowledged truth is that much of the physical brickwork was laid by foreign hands.

Nearly half of Singapore’s foreign residents are Work Permit Holders, who predominantly work in the construction, marine, and domestic sectors. They account for 1 in 10 of Singapore’s population and the work they do keeps the nation’s infrastructure running smoothly everyday. However, the neoliberal policies that enabled Singapore’s rapid success have also resulted in barely existent legal protections for foreign laborers. With few structural provisions in place, many foreign workers are at risk of potential abuse at the hands of their employers.

The Migrant Worker’s Center (MWC) is a non-governmental organization aimed at improving the conditions of foreign workers, in the event that such abuses arise. Bernard Menon, MWC’s executive director, recounts a recent case of occupational abuse concerning Bangladeshi construction workers: “The place where [the employer] was housing them, the standards were, I mean, I would say downright illegal. And the food he was providing for his workers – bear in mind he charges them for the food they cater in – they were preparing the food at 11 PM for consumption the next day … Breakfast is consumed maybe seven hours after preparation, lunch is consumed more than 12 hours after preparation. The workers call us and say they regularly, frequently throw lunch away because it’s not consumable.”

Beyond labor conditions, the emotional toll of working as an immigrant is also tough. For example, Robina Navato is a Filipino domestic worker who has been working in Singapore for the last 22 years. For Navato, the hardest part about being a foreign worker is by far the separation from her family. She has three children, all of whom grew up in the Philippines while she was working in Singapore: “This was the only way I could provide for them. I left them when my eldest was three years old and my youngest was one. The first time I went home was after 6 years. The first question my daughter asked me was ‘are you my mother? I’ll never forget that.’”

Prospects of change look slim. Many of these workers are uneducated and illiterate, unaware of what their employment rights are. Those that are find themselves constrained by legal restrictions on strikes, prohibited by theIndustrial Relations Act, which has been the cornerstone of Singapore’s labor policy since 1968. Furthermore, the foreign status of these workers gives them no electoral input into the political processes of their host state.

Unable to petition the government directly, many migrant workers seek the assistance of non-governmental organizations. Navato is a service recipient at the Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics, a non-profit providing emotional support to and advocating on behalf of foreign domestic workers (FDWs). Menon’s Migrant Worker’s Center has investigated claims of employer abuse, including the recent food safety scandal and also runs a 24-hour helpline.

Still, Singapore’s paternalistic policies and hyper-emphasis on economic efficiency make legal reform difficult. Due to its affiliation with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), the MWC has significant financial and administrative capabilities. Dealing with nearly 4,000 cases a year, it has the largest scope of all the migrant welfare organizations. However, the NTUC’s close partnership with Parliament also blunts the MWC’s appeals with conservative caution. Clout comes at a price.

On the other hand, working within the system does lend much-needed prudence to a budding social movement. In 2012, 171 Chinese bus captains went on strike, causing the nation’s public transport system to experience massive delays. Menon credits the strike with raising awareness regarding the migrant workers’ cause and drawing attention to issues of social inequity. However, he laments at how the illegality of the protest led to 5 workers jailed and 29 deported. After the strike, the MWC realized it had to exert a greater effort in processing the workers’ frustrations before the latter undertook actions that could jeopardize their residence in the country.

The MWC’s careful approach is not for lack of heart. “Your understanding of the challenges and anxieties of migrant workers become almost second nature to you because of the work,” Menon admits. “In the course of everyday’s work, you naturally come into contact with areas where you start to question, ‘How come the law is structured like this? It doesn’t make sense.’” Ultimately, though, he concludes that it is a war of attrition.

Despite slow progress on the political front, the center has made headway in promoting social integration of foreign workers. The 2012 strike and the 2013 Little India riot have moved what Menon refers to as a “silent majority” of Singaporeans from apathy to speaking out against the conditions endured by migrant workers. The most fertile soil for activism? Students.

“Generally, every year, I used to speak to 100 to 200 students,” says Menon. “But in the years since the riot, annually, I easily do student engagements in the thousands, four, five, six thousands in a year.” He notes the increased number of teachers willing to engage their students with community issues, as well as the eagerness of the students. Students have started grassroots initiatives aimed at fostering understanding between migrant workers and the local population, such as It’s Raining Raincoats, a project that provides construction workers raincoats during the wet seasons. At least among the youth, public opinion of migrant workers has shifted towards the positive end of the spectrum.

It isn’t much, but it’s a start. After all, the first step to solving a human rights issue is to recognize the humanity and assert the dignity of those that are being abused. Navato echoes this sentiment: “If you’re having a problem with a bad employer, the first step is to talk to them … it’s not easy, but you have to do it. Otherwise, there’s no way out. You have to start with communicating.” Wholesale change starts with the individual.

So while there are few immediate political mechanisms to advance the rights of foreign workers, there is modest hope for the future. However, for a truly effective movement, NGOs and citizens alike cannot be merely satisfied with increased awareness. They must capitalize on this momentum and use it to tackle the roots of the issue. The current conditions may not be ripe for change and Singapore’s political structure may not necessarily allow it. Still, advocates must not lose sight of the end goal and keep pressing until there are legally codified guarantees for fairer contracts, firmer prosecution of abusive employers, safe living conditions, and decent wages. Persisting in this uphill fight is the only way to build a Singapore where everyone can benefit.

The Uphill Fight for Migrant Rights in Singapore was last modified: February 2nd, 2018 by Jemma Tan